Shooting 35mm transparency and why...

[removed account4]

I used to shoot a lot of 35mm transparency, Velvia 50 and Provia, then I got an RB67 and tended to use that instead. In 35mm I mostly switched to negative material, but I've recently rediscovered using 35mm transparency. Given that you have to use one of those 'getty picture onto computer thingy' devices for transparency these days, rather than printing optically, I was wondering who uses still transparency over negative material in 35mm and why.

hi extolshiffer

while i don't do it, a regular appugger has all his BW film processed by dr5 as chromes
and he loves it ! slides are a great way to see things without having to invert the negative in one's mind

 

[Roger Cole]

hi extolshiffer

while i don't do it, a regular appugger has all his BW film processed by dr5 as chromes
and he loves it ! slides are a great way to see things without having to invert the negative in one's mind

Not great for those of us who love very little as much as we do optical darkroom printing though.

And last I looked dr5 was still not back up and running for reversal processing, though they plan to be. I do want to play with B&W reversal which I think would be a lot of fun, but not for all or even most film that I shoot. (And besides, if Ferrania doesn't get a 400 film out before I run out of Provia 400X it may be the only way I can shoot slides for projection in dim-ish light, other than, gasp, horrors, digitally. But I'll go that route if I have to.)

 

[removed account4]

Not great for those of us who love very little as much as we do optical darkroom printing though.

And last I looked dr5 was still not back up and running for reversal processing, though they plan to be. I do want to play with B&W reversal which I think would be a lot of fun, but not for all or even most film that I shoot. (And besides, if Ferrania doesn't get a 400 film out before I run out of Provia 400X it may be the only way I can shoot slides for projection in dim-ish light, other than, gasp, horrors, digitally. But I'll go that route if I have to.)

i agree roger ... but there are plenty of ways to turn 35mm chromes ( b/w ) into traditionally optically enlarged prints.
i used to do this all the time ... you put the slide in the enlarger, and project it down onto a large / larger sheet of photo paper ( b/w )
THEN you contact print that black and white internegative ( paper negative ) onto another piece of paper .. its not hard, and lots of fun
AND sometimes you like the negatives even more than the positives ( long exposed raked light landscape as a negative can look like a pencil sketch )
and taking a FB internegative, waxing it to be translucent-er makes it easy to do cyanotypes too ... after all some of the first photographs were paper negatives

larger chromes ( color or b/w ) in a frame in a window are beautiful to look at too, like stained glass ..

YMMV

 

[DREW WILEY]

I didn't mention a third obvious alternative, which very few people will undertake; but one can make tricolor separation negatives on black
and white film, then sequentially enlarge these in register onto either RA4 paper of something even more involved like dye transfer or color
carbon. This allows for a very high level of reproduction, but will be time consuming, expensive, and requires specialized gear (which I have).

 

[removed account4]

hi drew

the equipment for tri chromes isn't that specialized
it just takes the film and paper and light ...

DT on the other hand and CC, is a different story !

 

[DREW WILEY]

OK. Just how do you intend to print ANYTHING tri-chrome without precise registration gear? And just film isn't just film. Ever try keeping
acetate film in register? And calibrating even the same film for three discrete wavelengths all precisely balanced for curve shape, reciprocity, grain, etc involves a LOT of work gettting your protocol predictable. But I was referring to making separation negs from transparency film, not in-camera.

 

[avortex]

I shoot slides mainly in stereo. Nothing beats that, in a viewer or in projection.
In colour are a joy to watch, but B&W stereo slides, with their magical realism, is something that I can't resist...

 

[guangong]

Reversal is not that difficult

Besides negative film I enjoy both color and bw slides. 6x6 and 6x7 slides are stuning and 35 on a big screen are quite impressive. Which depends upon shooting conditions and opportunity. I do process 100 ft roles of 16mm movie film for bw. Color is too finicky. The idea og bw stereo is intriging and i will try it in my stereo realist. I get such good ideas from Apug.

 

[removed account4]

OK. Just how do you intend to print ANYTHING tri-chrome without precise registration gear? And just film isn't just film. Ever try keeping
acetate film in register? And calibrating even the same film for three discrete wavelengths all precisely balanced for curve shape, reciprocity, grain, etc involves a LOT of work gettting your protocol predictable. But I was referring to making separation negs from transparency film, not in-camera.

i have printed, well, i don't print them traditionally
i use other means which is not exceptionally technical or gear oriented ...
i am sure if i did color work i would figure out a low tech way of registering the negatives to make a contact print.

YMMV

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's nothing low tech or high-tech about it, unless you're doing registrations and curve corrections digitally. You can go out an buy a 3-hole paper punch and a few nails and do it. And that is exactly how some people have. Just don't expect either the convenience or precision of something seriously machined to do the job. That's like someone calling themselves a chef just because they know how to throw a TV dinner
in the microwave.

 

[John51]

I love Velvia 50 in 6x9 so much that I'm stocking up on remaining 220 rolls.

I scan a few to share on the internet, but mostly I just gawk at their beauty on the light table.

Here's another beauty for you to gawk at:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49054932@N04/5456057709

 

[removed account4]

1 of a kind images

There's nothing low tech or high-tech about it, unless you're doing registrations and curve corrections digitally. You can go out an buy a 3-hole paper punch and a few nails and do it. And that is exactly how some people have. Just don't expect either the convenience or precision of something seriously machined to do the job. That's like someone calling themselves a chef just because they know how to throw a TV dinner
in the microwave.

i agree drew,
pin registration can be as low tech or high tech as one wants it to be.but having a color darkroom
is a bit more high tech than a bare bulb, coffee developer, and fixer ...
(YMMV )

this stuff really isn't anything to do with the OP's innitial question, what is the point of chromes ..
i think the point of chromes is to have a beautiful looking 35mm ( or larger ) 1 of a kind images
something to hold in one's hands or project on the screen or in window light
or if it is a b/w chrome made by various means ( DR5 or one's own alchemy ) for better electrification into the world of hybrid photography
or if it is on account of an arcane 19th or early 20th process, it's to revel in the results of a sometimes time consuming, difficult, dangerous or fun process
that creates 1 of a kind images.

there really is nothing like staring down at a tray of fixer and watching white silver gelatin emulsion dissappear from
the surface of a piece of metal or glass revealing a positive image underneath.

i don't do tv dinners, not a chef, and never have claimed to be one.